Should I use px or rem value units in my CSS

Question

I am designing a new website and I want it to be compatible with as much browsers and browser settings as possible  I am trying to decide what unit of measurement I should use for the sizes of my fonts and elements  but am unable to find a conclusive answer   My question is  should I use px or rem in my CSS    So far I know that using px isn t compatible with users who adjust their base font size in their browser  I ve disregarded ems because they are more of a hassle to maintain  compared to rems  as they cascade  Some say that rems are resolution independent and therefore more desirable  But others say that most modern browsers zoom all elements equally anyway  so using px is not a problem    I m asking this because there are a lot of different opinions as to what is the most desirable measure of distance in CSS  and I am not sure which is best

User · Answer

Yes  REM and PX are relative yet other answers have suggested to go for REM over PX  I would also like to back this up using an accessibility example  When user sets different font-size on browser  REM automatically scale up and down elements like fonts  images etc on the webpage which is not the case with PX   In the below gif left side text is set using font size REM unit while right side font is set by PX unit    As you can see that REM is scaling up down automatically when I resize the default font-size of webpage  bottom-right side   Default font-size of a webpage is 16px which is equal to 1 rem  only for default html page i e  html font-size 100     so  1 25rem is equal to 20px  P S  who else is using REM  CSS Frameworks  like Bootstrap 4  Bulma CSS etc  so better get along with it

User · Answer

TL DR  use px   The Facts   First  it s extremely important to know that per spec  the CSS px unit does not equal one physical display pixel   This has always been true  ndash  even in the 1996 CSS 1 spec   CSS defines the reference pixel  which measures the size of a pixel on a 96 dpi display   On a display that has a dpi substantially different than 96dpi  like Retina displays   the user agent rescales the px unit so that its size matches that of a reference pixel   In other words  this rescaling is exactly why 1 CSS pixel equals 2 physical Retina display pixels   That said  up until 2010  and the mobile zoom situation notwithstanding   the px almost always did equal one physical pixel  because all widely available displays were around 96dpi  Sizes specified in ems are relative to the parent element   This leads to the em s  compounding problem  where nested elements get progressively larger or smaller   For example   body   font-size 20px     div   font-size 0 5em      Gives us    lt body gt  - 20px      lt div gt  - 10px          lt div gt  - 5px              lt div gt  - 2 5px                  lt div gt  - 1 25px  The CSS3 rem  which is always relative only to the root html element  is now supported on 96  of all browsers in use    The Opinion  I think everyone agrees that it s good to design your pages to be accommodating to everyone  and to make consideration for the visually impaired   One such consideration  but not the only one   is allowing users to make the text of your site bigger  so that it s easier to read   In the beginning  the only way to provide users a way to scale text size was by using relative size units  such as ems    This is because the browser s font size menu simply changed the root font size   Thus  if you specified font sizes in px  they wouldn t scale when changing the browser s font size option   Modern browsers  and even the not-so-modern IE7  all changed the default scaling method to simply zooming in on everything  including images and box sizes   Essentially  they make the reference pixel larger or smaller   Yes  someone could still change their browser default stylesheet to tweak the default font size  the equivalent of the old-style font size option   but that s a very esoteric way of going about it and I d wager nobody1 does it    In Chrome  it s buried under the advanced settings  Web content  Font Sizes   In IE9  it s even more hidden   You have to press Alt  and go to View  Text Size    It s much easier to just select the Zoom option in the browser s main menu  or use Ctrl   - mouse wheel    1 - within statistical error  naturally  If we assume most users scale pages using the zoom option  I find relative units mostly irrelevant   It s much easier to develop your page when everything is specified in the same unit  images are all dealt with in pixels   and you don t have to worry about compounding       I was told there would be no math   ndash  there s dealing with having to calculate what 1 5em actually works out to    One other potential problem of using only relative units for font sizes is that user-resized fonts may break assumptions your layout makes   For example  this might lead to text getting clipped or running too long   If you use absolute units  you don t have to worry about unexpected font sizes from breaking your layout   So my answer is use pixel units   I use px for everything   Of course  your situation may vary  and if you must support IE6  may the gods of the RFCs have mercy on you   you ll have to use ems anyway

User · Answer

josh3736 s answer is a good one  but to provide a counterpoint 3 years later   I recommend using rem units for fonts  if only because it makes it easier for you  the developer  to change sizes  It s true that users very rarely change the default font size in their browsers  and that modern browser zoom will scale up px units  But what if your boss comes to you and says  don t enlarge the images or icons  but make all the fonts bigger   It s much easier to just change the root font size and let all the other fonts scale relative to that  then to change px sizes in dozens or hundreds of css rules   I think it still makes sense to use px units for some images  or for certain layout elements that should always be the same size regardless of the scale of the design   Caniuse com may have said that only 75  of browsers when josh3736 posted his answer in 2012  but as of March 27 they claim 93 78  support  Only IE8 doesn t support it among the browsers they track

User · Answer

Half  but only half  snarky answer  the other half is bitter disdain of the reality of bureaucracy   Use vh Everything is always sized to browser window  Always allow scroll down  but disable horizontal scroll  Set body width to be a static 50vh  and never code css that floats or breaks out of the parent div   If they try to mock up something that looks like it does  clever use of a background gif can throw them off track   And style only using tables so everything is held rigidly into place as expected  Include a javascript function to undo any ctrl  - activity the user may do  Users will hate you  because the site doesn t flow differently based on what they re using  such as text being too small to read on phones   Your coworkers will hate you because nobody in their right mind does this and it will likely break their work  though not yours   Your programming professors will hate you because this is not a good idea  Your UX designer will hate you because it will reveal the corners they cut in designing UX mock-ups that they have to do in order to meet deadlines  Nearly everyone will hate you  except the people who tell you to make things match the mock-up and to do so quickly  Those people  however  which generally include the project managers   will be ecstatic by your accuracy and fast turn around time  And everyone knows their opinion is the only one that matters to your paycheck

User · Answer

I ve found the best way to program the font sizes of a website are to define a base font size for the body and then use em s  or rem s  for every other font-size I declare after that   That s personal preference I suppose  but it s served me well and also made it very easy to incorporate a more responsive design   As far as using rem units go  I think it s good to find a balance between being progressive in your code  but to also offer support for older browsers   Check out this link about browser support for rem units  that should help out a good amount on your decision

User · Answer

em s are the way forward  not just for fonts but you can use them with boxes  line thickness and other stuff too  why   Put simply em s are the only ones that scale in unison with the alt  and alt- keys in the browser for zooming   Other measurements scale  but not as cleanly as an em   On a side note if you want the best in scaling  also convert your graphics to vector based SVG where possible too as these will also cleanly scale with the browsers zoom ratio

User · Answer

pt is similar to rem  in that it s relatively fixed  but almost always DPI-independent  even when non-compliant browsers treat px in a device-dependent fashion   rem varies with the font size of the root element  but you can use something like Sass Compass to do this automatically with pt   If you had this   html       font-size  12pt      then 1rem would always be 12pt   rem and em are only as device-independent as the elements on which they rely  some browsers don t behave according to spec  and treat px literally   Even in the old days of the Web  1 point was consistently regarded as 1 72 inch--that is  there are 72 points in an inch   If you have an old  non-compliant browser  and you have   html       font-size  16px      then 1rem is going to be device-dependent   For elements that would inherit from html by default  1em would also be device-dependent   12pt would be the hopefully guaranteed device-independent equivalent  16px   96px   72pt   12pt  where 96px   72pt   1in   It can get pretty complicated to do the math if you want to stick to specific units   For example   75em of html    75rem   9pt  and  66em of  75em of html    5rem   6pt   A good rule of thumb    Use pt for absolute sizes   If you really need this to be dynamic relative to the root element  you re asking too much of CSS  you need a language that compiles to CSS  like Sass SCSS  Use em for relative sizes  It s pretty handy to be able to say   I want the margin on the left to be about the maximum width of a letter   or   Make this element s text just a bit bigger than its surroundings     lt h1 gt  is a good element on which to use a font size in ems  since it might appear in various places  but should always be bigger than nearby text   This way  you don t have to have a separate font size for every class that s applied to h1  the font size will adapt automatically  Use px for very tiny sizes   At very small sizes  pt can get blurry in some browsers at 96 DPI  since pt and px don t quite line up   If you just want to create a thin  one-pixel border  say so   If you have a high-DPI display  this won t be obvious to you during testing  so be sure to test on a generic 96-DPI display at some point  Don t deal in subpixels to make things fancy on high-DPI displays  Some browsers might support it--particularly on high-DPI displays--but it s a no-no   Most users prefer big and clear  though the web has taught us developers otherwise   If you want to add extended detail for your users with state-of-the-art screens  you can use vector graphics  read  SVG   which you should be doing anyway

User · Answer

I would like to praise josh3736 s answer for providing some excellent historical context  While it s well articulated  the CSS landscape has changed in the almost five years since this question was asked  When this question was asked  px was the correct answer  but that no longer holds true today     tl dr  use rem  Unit Overview  Historically px units typically represented one device pixel  With devices having higher and higher pixel density this no longer holds for many devices  such as with Apple s Retina Display   rem units represent the root em size  It s the font-size of whatever matches  root  In the case of HTML  it s the  lt html gt  element  for SVG  it s the  lt svg gt  element  The default font-size in every browser  is 16px   At the time of writing  rem is supported by approximately 98  of users  If you re worried about that other 2   I ll remind you that media queries are also supported by approximately 98  of users   On Using px  The majority of CSS examples on the internet use px values because they were the de-facto standard  pt  in and a variety of other units could have been used in theory  but they didn t handle small values well as you d quickly need to resort to fractions  which were longer to type  and harder to reason about   If you wanted a thin border  with px you could use 1px  with pt you d need to use 0 75pt for consistent results  and that s just not very convenient   On Using rem  rem s default value of 16px isn t a very strong argument for its use  Writing 0 0625rem is worse than writing 0 75pt  so why would anyone use rem   There are two parts to rem s advantage over other units    User preferences are respected You can change the apparent px value of rem to whatever you d like   Respecting User Preferences  Browser zoom has changed a lot over the years  Historically many browsers would only scale up font-size  but that changed pretty rapidly when websites realized that their beautiful pixel-perfect designs were breaking any time someone zoomed in or out  At this point  browsers scale the entire page  so font-based zooming is out of the picture   Respecting a user s wishes is not out of the picture  Just because a browser is set to 16px by default  doesn t mean any user can t change their preferences to 24px or 32px to correct for low vision or poor visibility  e x  screen glare   If you base your units off of rem  any user at a higher font-size will see a proportionally larger site  Borders will be bigger  padding will be bigger  margins will be bigger  everything will scale up fluidly   If you base your media queries on rem  you can also make sure that the site your users see fits their screen  A user with font-size set to 32px on a 640px wide browser  will effectively be seeing your site as shown to a user at 16px on a 320px wide browser  There s absolutely no loss for RWD in using rem   Changing Apparent px Value  Because rem is based on the font-size of the  root node  if you want to change what 1rem represents  all you have to do is change the font-size    x000D   x000D   root   x000D    font-size  100px  x000D    x000D  body   x000D    font-size  1rem  x000D    x000D   lt p gt Don t ever actually do this  please lt  p gt  x000D   x000D   x000D    Whatever you do  don t set the  root element s font-size to a px value   If you set the font-size on html to a px value  you ve blown away the user s preferences without a way to get them back   If you want to change the apparent value of rem  use   units   The math for this is reasonably straight-forward   The apparent font-size of  root is 16px  but lets say we want to change it to 20px  All we need to do is multiply 16 by some value to get 20   Set up your equation   16   X   20   And solve for X   X   20   16 X   1 25 X   125     x000D   x000D   root   x000D    font-size  125   x000D    x000D   lt p gt If you re using the default font-size  I m 20px tall  lt  p gt  x000D   x000D   x000D    Doing everything in multiples of 20 isn t all that great  but a common suggestion is to make the apparent size of rem equal to 10px  The magic number for that is 10 16 which is 0 625  or 62 5     x000D   x000D   root   x000D    font-size  62 5   x000D    x000D   lt p gt If you re using the default font-size  I m 10px tall  lt  p gt  x000D   x000D   x000D    The problem now is that your default font-size for the rest of the page is set way too small  but there s a simple fix for that  Set a font-size on body using rem    x000D   x000D   root   x000D    font-size  62 5   x000D    x000D   x000D  body   x000D    font-size  1 6rem  x000D    x000D   lt p gt I m the default font-size lt  p gt  x000D   x000D   x000D    It s important to note  with this adjustment in place  the apparent value of rem is 10px which means any value you might have written in px can be converted directly to rem by bumping a decimal place   padding  20px    turns into  padding  2rem    The apparent font-size you choose is up to you  so if you want there s no reason you can t use    root     font-size  6 25     body     font-size  16rem      and have 1rem equal 1px   So there you have it  a simple solution to respect user wishes while also avoiding over-complicating your CSS   Wait  so what s the catch   I was afraid you might ask that  As much as I d like to pretend that rem is magic and solves-all-things  there are still some issues of note  Nothing deal-breaking in my opinion  but I m going to call them out so you can t say I didn t warn you   Media Queries  use em   One of the first issues you ll run into with rem involves media queries  Consider the following code    root     font-size  1000px     media  min-width  1rem       root       font-size  1px          Here the value of rem changes depending on whether the media-query applies  and the media query depends on the value of rem  so what on earth is going on   rem in media queries uses the initial value of font-size and should not  see Safari section  take into account any changes that may have happened to the font-size of the  root element  In other words  it s apparent value is always 16px   This is a bit annoying  because it means that you have to do some fractional calculations  but I have found that most common media queries already use values that are multiples of 16       px   rem    ------ -----     320    20      480    30      768    48     1024    64     1200    75     1600   100     Additionally if you re using a CSS preprocessor  you can use mixins or variables to manage your media queries  which will mask the issue entirely   Safari  Unfortunately there s a known bug with Safari where changes to the  root font-size do actually change the calculated rem values for media query ranges  This can cause some very strange behavior if the font-size of the  root element is changed within a media query  Fortunately the fix is simple  use em units for media queries   Context Switching  If you switch between projects various different projects  it s quite possible that the apparent font-size of rem will have different values  In one project  you might be using an apparent size of 10px where in another project the apparent size might be 1px  This can be confusing and cause issues   My only recommendation here is to stick with 62 5  to convert rem to an apparent size of 10px  because that has been more common in my experience   Shared CSS Libraries  If you re writing CSS that s going to be used on a site that you don t control  such as for an embedded widget  there s really no good way to know what apparent size rem will have  If that s the case  feel free to keep using px   If you still want to use rem though  consider releasing a Sass or LESS version of the stylesheet with a variable to override the scaling for the apparent size of rem       I don t want to spook anyone away from using rem  but I haven t been able to officially confirm that every browser uses 16px by default  You see  there are a lot of browsers and it wouldn t be all that hard for one browser to have diverged ever so slightly to  say 15px or 18px  In testing  however I have not seen a single example where a browser using default settings in a system using default settings had any value other than 16px  If you find such an example  please share it with me

User · Answer

Yes  Or  rather  no    Er  I mean  it doesn t matter  Use the one that makes sense for your particular project  PX and EM or both equally valid but will behave a bit different depending on your overall page s CSS architecture    UPDATE   To clarify  I m stating that usually it likely doesn t matter which you use  At times  you may specifically want to choose one over the other  EMs are nice if you can start from scratch and want to use a base font size and make everything relative to that    PXs are often needed when you re retrofitting a redesign onto an existing code base and need the specificity of px to prevent bad nesting issues

User · Answer

EMs are the ONLY thing that scales for media queries that handle   - scaling  which people do all the time  not just blind people  Here s another very well written professional demonstration of why this matters   By the way  this is why Zurb Foundation uses ems  while the inferior Bootstrap 3 still uses pixels

User · Answer

As a reflex answer  I would recommend using rem  because it allows you to change the  zoom level  of the whole document at once  if necessary  In some cases  when you want the size to be relative to the parent element  then use em   But rem support is spotty  IE8 needs a polyfill  and Webkit is exhibiting a bug  Moreover  sub-pixel calculation can cause things such as one pixel lines to sometimes disappear  The remedy is to code in pixels for such very small elements  That introduces even more complexity   So  overall  ask yourself whether it s worth it - how important and likely it is that you change the  zoom level  of the whole document within CSS   For some cases it s yes  for some cases it ll be no   So  it depends on your needs  and you have to weight pros and cons  because using rem and em introduces some additional considerations in comparison to the  normal  pixel-based workflow   Keep in mind that it s easy to switch  or rather convert  your CSS from px to rem  JavaScript is another story   because the following two blocks of CSS code would produce the same result   html      body     font-size 14px      someElement     width  12px        html     font-size 1px     body     font-size 14rem      someElement     width  12rem

User · Answer

This article describes pretty well the pros and cons of px  em  and rem   The author finally concludes that the best method is probably to use both px and rem  declaring px first for older browsers and redeclaring rem for newer browsers   html   font-size  62 5      body   font-size  14px  font-size  1 4rem        14px    h1     font-size  24px  font-size  2 4rem        24px

[html] Should I use px or rem value units in my CSS?

Examples related to html

Examples related to css

Examples related to distance

Examples related to units-of-measurement